This is a response to Mike Barr's message of 28 February. I agree with him that the Kluwer form used by `Applied Categorical Structures' is no worse than that used by grant-giving bodies such as NSERC---the British EPSRC forms are every bit as bad as those used by NSERC, believe me--- but there is an important difference: we don't have any `muscle' in arguments with the grant-giving bodies because we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, beholden to them ourselves, whereas (thanks largely to the Internet) referees do now have collective muscle which we can deploy against journal editors and publishers (as Mike rightly points out, they are dinosaurs under imminent threat of extinction in any case), and in my view we should use it if by so doing we can improve the conditions under which we operate. Incidentally, to correct a misunderstanding of my original message which some people seem to have made: I wasn't simply saying that in future I will ignore the APCS questionnaire (I have been doing that since the journal started, in any case), but rather that I will ignore any papers which are sent to me accompanied by the questionnaire---I will only referee papers which are sent without the questionnaire. If we all agree to do that, then Kluwer will very quickly be forced to abandon the wretched thing. Peter Johnstone